**99.89.1 Einstain Was Backward (RGrace)**

Subject: Einstain Was Backward

From: rgrace@rgrace.org

To: SSmith6565@aol.com, rgrace@rgrace.org

Date: Sat, December 18, 2004 8:51 am

Steve,

I mirrored your paper because you are highly intelligent. I also wanted you to either prove or disprove that my Premises, below are correct or incorrect. As you said in your last email, "comments, questions, or critique is welcome", so I'm going to question the whole foundation of Einstein, upon which all science rests.

I also see that another extremely intelligent person named Jerry Iuliano, who has posted uncountable emails in Electrons and Mythologies, has also stated that gravity is a derivative of electric charge, just as you stated;

"gravity being an induced phenomena caused by electric charge in orbital motion within atoms."

However, you, Jerry and all science always calculates from the known to the unknown gravity...you go from 3rd dimension known phenomena to 4th dimension unknown gravity, zero-point, etc.....I see "charge" as being a charge of space, not matter, the quantum of space not a quantum of light. And working backwards, I see that the charge, that which space holds, is the cause of lesser electric and magnetic phenomena.

I go from 4th controlling dimension to 3rd dimension electric and magnetism.

I arrived at this conclusion after 26 years of putting everything else in place, the jigsaw puzzle only had 3 or 4 unknown pieces left...namely, gravity the unknown, space the unknown, the 4th dimension, the unknown.........You know why nobody knows what gravity is? Because gravity is not in this dimension.......unknown gravity is in another dimension.... the unknown 4th dimension and unknown zero-point space.....these are all the same, it seemed. So I said...gravity is what space does. This is why gravity seems to push toward the center of mass....because space is pushing toward the center of its vortex......because gravity is what space does.......

There is an old saying by Trismigistos, "The higher force controls the lower force". Space is the first, higher force that orders all else....and gravity is what space does.....you see? Electricity is a function of gravitating space...not the other way around......Electricity and magnetism didn't come first...space and gravity came first......the charge of space came first which we ascribe to charged electron or matter.......the geodetic precession of space came first which twists mass.........the rotation of space came first which rotates earth........light isn't bent by gravity, it is bent by optical space........mass doesn't bend light, space vortexes bend everything in it and nothing can go faster or slower than the 186,283 mps velocity of....space.......not light....you see what Einstain did? He had it "p.r.e.c.i.s.e.l.y" backward.

If you can prove or at least, give a solid argument that this Premise is wrong and backward, go right ahead, but I believe it is correct and Einstein is completely backward and misleading.

If you want to give up, I will accommodate you and take your webpages off, if you prefer. I am simply expecting you to challenge my theory with sound principles like you use in your papers.

Robert Grace

My Premise:

186,283 mps was attributed to light instead of to non-dimension space,

Space dragging was attributed to mass instead of to non-dimension space,

Space twisting was attributed to mass instead of to non-dimension space,

Geodetic precession was attributed to mass instead of to non-dimension space,

Gravity was attributed to mass instead of to non-dimension space,

Time was attributed to 4D instead of to 0D gravity,

Light bending was attributed to gravity instead of to optical, non-dimension space,

All because non-dimension space could not easily be measured, therefore the measurers were not needed.

05/19/04 Robert Grace

--- SSmith6565@aol.com wrote:

From: SSmith6565@aol.com

Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 10:58:31 EST

To: terrypp@aemail4u.com

Subject: Re: A New Science Paper

Hi Robert,

I'm sorry to hear about your computer/Internet related problems. Hope everything is better now.

I'm a bit confused by your comments concerning gravity. You have mirrored both my Electrodynamic Space, and Electrogravitics papers at your website. By taking this action, I had assumed you agreed, at least in part, with the content of these papers.

When taken together, these two papers point at gravity being an induced phenomena caused by electric charge in orbital motion within atoms. Many secondary effects (bent space, time dilation, etc.) result from the interaction of the induced gravitational field, and a nonlinear electrodynamic space.

The "new" paper I wished to draw to your attention was "The Unified Field". Perhaps there was some confusion over this issue.

Best regards,

Steven

In a message dated 12/16/2004 3:31:55 PM Pacific Standard Time, terrypp@aemail4u.com writes:

OK Steven,

I finished the first two pages of the gravitics series. Waiting for the third part. I'm sorry for the late response...Its a combination of computer hangups, lost info, uncoordinated email sites, names and addresses and creating new files. I recall one thing you said about unifying gravity with EM. I don't really get anyones maths or statements that gravity is finally unified with EM. Gravity seems to be what space does...it spirals toward the center...and so....gravitic toward its center....I cant prove that but that's how gravity works....any comments?

Robert

--- SSmith6565@aol.com wrote:

From: SSmith6565@aol.com

Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 03:52:14 EST

To: terrypp@aemail4u.com

Subject: Re: A New Science Paper

Hi Robert,

I've just published a new paper entitled "The Unified Field". It's available at my site at URL:

http://www.geocities.com/electrogravitics/

Some of the concepts dovetail very nicely with your "layered" approach to physics. The paper is listed in the lower left hand corner of the main menu. Enjoy :-)

As always, comments, questions, or critique is welcome.

Best regards,

Steven J. Smith

**99.89.2 Zeros of the Zeta function and electrogravity (Iuliano)**

Subject: Zeros of the Zeta function and electrogravity

From: JerryIuliano@aol.com

To: rgrace@rgrace.org

Date: Fri, December 17, 2004 8:23 pm

4.2.4 Behavior of S(t)

The S(t) function is defined in () and permits to count zeros with formula (). It plays an important role in the study of the zeros of the Zeta function, because it was observed that special phenomenon about the zeta function on the critical line occurs when S(t) is large. For example, Rosser rule holds when |S(t)| < 2 in some range, thus one needs to have larger values of S(t) to find more rare behavior.

As already seen before, it is known unconditionally that S(t) = O(logt). Under the RH, we have the slightly better bound S(t) = O æ è logt

____________________________________

However, it is thought that the real growth of rate of S(t) is smaller. First, it was proved that unconditionally, the function S(t)/(2p2 loglogt)1/2 is asymptotically normally distributed. So in some sense, the "average" order of S(t) is (loglogt)1/2. As for extreme values of S(t); Montgomery has shown that under the RH, there is an infinite number of values of t tending to infinity so that the order of S(t) is at least (logt/loglogt)1/2. Montgomery also conjectured that this is also an upper bound for S(t). As described in section _4.2.6_

(http://numbers.computation.free.fr/Constants/Miscellaneous/zetazeroscompute.html#ss:ExtremeGaps) with formula (_5_

(http://numbers.computation.free.fr/Constants/Miscellaneous/zetazeroscompute.html#eq:LargeGapGUE) ), the GUE suggests that S(t) might get as large as (logt)1/2 which would contradict this conjecture.

As explained in [_18_ (http://numbers.computation.free.fr/Constants/Miscellaneous/zetazeroscompute.html#Odlyzko92) ,P. 28], one might expect that the average number of changes of sign of S(t) per Gram interval is of order (loglogt)-1/2. This is to be compared with the last column of the table below, which was obtained thanks to the statistics on Gram blocks and violations of Rosser rule.

As it is confirmed in heuristic data in the table below, the rate of growth of S(t) is very small. Since exceptions to RH, if any, would probably occur for large values of S(t), we see that one should be able to reach much larger height, not reachable with today's techniques, to find those.

Height Minimum of S(t) Maximum of S(t) Number of zeros with S(t) < -2.3 Number of zeros with S(t) > 2.3 Average number of change of sign of S(t) per Gram interval

1013 -2.4979 2.4775 208 237 1.5874 1014 -2.5657 2.5822 481 411 1.5758 1015 -2.7610 2.6318 785 760 1.5652 1016 -2.6565 2.6094 1246 1189 1.5555 1017 -2.6984 2.6961 1791 1812 1.5465 1018 -2.8703 2.7141 2598 2743 1.5382 1019 -2.9165 2.7553 3487 3467 1.5304 1020 -2.7902 2.7916 4661 4603 1.5232 1021 -2.7654 2.8220 5910 5777 1.5164 1022 -2.8169 2.9796 7322 7359 1.5100 1023 -2.8178 2.7989

What the hell was all that! MP

The explanation of the torus volumne with 37 (Rubidium) as minor tube radius ( r )and 57 (Lanthanum) as major loop radius ( R ). Formula for volumne = 2 * ( Pi ^ 2 ) * R * ( r ^ 2 ). In the S(t) function the double log form is demonstrated ...the function S(t) / 2 / ( Pi ^ 2 ) / loglogt... is asymptotically normally distributed ... the torus volumne formula is in the denominator of the S(t) variable...when substituting the loglogt form with the parameters of the torus one gets:

37.00000000572 = r = log

57.00000000000 = R = logt

2 * ( Pi ^ 2 ) * R * ( r ^ 2 ) = 1540309.681 = V = volumne

...the electron is the cosine pi'th root of this volumne:

( cosV ) ^ Pi = emev = .510998mev...

......"However, it is thought that the real growth of rate of S(t) is smaller. First, it was proved that unconditionally, the function S(t)/(2p2 loglogt)1/2 is asymptotically normally distributed. So in some sense, the "average" order of S(t) is (loglogt)1/2. As for extreme values of S(t); Montgomery has shown that under the RH, there is an infinite number of values of t tending to infinity so that the order of S(t) is at least (logt/loglogt)1/2. Montgomery also conjectured" .....

...but the electron is a function of the gravitational constant through the statement....So in some sense, the "average" order of S(t) is (loglogt)^1/2.....Substituting t by the gravitational constant G also creates the electron energy:

( log(logG + 12 )) ^ ( 1/2 ) = emev = .510998986mev

....the "average" order of S(t) is a function of the gravitational constant as S(G) through the double log form (loglogG+12)^1/2. Under RH...S(t) = O*(logt/loglogt)... and upon substituting the t variable by gravitational G, one arrives at the strange 4 Pi entity:

((( logG / log(logG + 12)) * 10 ) - 1 ) = -.3999926 * Pi

G = gravitational constant = 6.674205594 * ( 10 ^ - 11 ) m^3/kg/s^2

emev = electron = .510998918 mev

J.Iuliano

Following are formulas relating the harmonic mean...1/Rb+1/La... of the parameters of the Rubidium and Lanthanum atom to the fine-structure constant = aem = 1/137.03599911...e = natural log = 2.718281828...

ATOMIC NUMBER...Rbn = 37

ATOMIC NUMBER...Lan = 57

( e ^ ( Pi + 7.999999801 )) * (( 1/Rbn + 1/Lan ) ^ 2 ) = 1 / aem

ATOMIC MASS ...Rbm = 85.46854729 ...( data = 85.4678 )

ATOMIC MASS....Lam = 138.9055

( e ^ ( Rbm / Lam * 2807 / 1579 * 32 / Pi )) * (( 1/Rbn + 1/Lan ) ^ 2 ) = 1 / aem

FERMAT FORMS...e ^ ( Pi + 8 )...2807 and 1579 = shell, 57 and 37 = generators

( e ^ ( e ^ ( 2807.00018942 * 2 / 1579 )) / Pi ) * (( 1/Rbn + 1/Lan ) ^ 2 ) =1 / aem

( e ^ ( Pi + 7.999999801 )) * (( 1/Rbn + 1/Lan ) ^ 2 ) = 1 / aem

ATOMIC RADIUS...Rbr = 247.4947627 pm...( data = 247.5 pm )

ATOMIC RADIUS...Lar = 188 pm

10 ^ ( 2 / 100 / ( 1/Rbr + 1/Lar )) = 1 / aem

ELECTRO-NEGATIVITY...Rben = .820000360979...( data = .82 )

ELECTRO-NEGATIVITY...Laen = 1.1

(( e ^ 8 ) / (((( 1/Rben + 1/Laen ) ^ .25 ) - 1 ) ^ 2 )) * (( 1/Rbn + 1/Lan ) ^ 2 ) = 1 / aem

( e ^ 8 ) / ( i ^ ( i * 2 )) * (( 1/Rbn + 1/Lan ) ^ 2 ) = 1 /aem

FIRST IONIZATION ENERGY....Rbio = 538.1

FIRST IONIZATION ENERGY....Laio = 402.919147733....( data = 403 ) specific heat Rb = .360

( 10 ^ ( .360 * 2 / ( 1/Rbio + 1/Laio ) / .666 / 32 )) / ( 666 ^ 2 ) = 1 / aem

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY...Rbec = .07796 * ( 10 ^ 6 )...(data =.0779 * ( 10 ^ 6 ))

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY...Laec = ?

( Rbec ^ 2 ) / ( 6660 ^ 2 ) = 1 / aem

DENSITY...Lad = 6145

DENSITY...Rbd = 1532.086274....(data = 1532 )

Feigenbaum delta constant = F = 4.669201609...

(( 1 / ( 1/Rbd + 1/ Lad ) / F ) ^ 2 ) * (( 1/Rbn + 1/Lan ) ^ 2 ) = 1 / aem

MOLAR VOLUME...Lamv = 22.6

MOLAR VOLUME...Rbmv = 55.77637916...( data = 55.79 )

IN( 1/Rbmv + 1/Lamv ) = -.360 = specific heat

THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY....Latc = 13.5

THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY....Rbtc = 58.16692296...( data = 58.2 )

( 1/Rbtc + 1/Latc ) / .000666 = 1 / aem

MELTING POINT...Lamp = 1194

MELTING POINT...Rbmp = 312.21036612...(data = 312.2 )

ATOMIC RADIUS...Lar = 188

10 ^ ( 2 / (1/Lamp + 1/Rbmp + 1/Lar ) / 100 ) = 1 / aem

J.Iuliano

Sponsored by the_Institute of Physics_ (http://www.iop.org/)

_Constants_

(http://www.fnrf.science.cmu.ac.th/tcaep/science/constant/index.htm)

_Equations_

(http://www.fnrf.science.cmu.ac.th/tcaep/science/equation/index.htm)

_Periodic Table_

(http://www.fnrf.science.cmu.ac.th/tcaep/science/periodic/index.htm)
Atomic No. Order:

Alphabetic Order:

_Conversions_

(http://www.fnrf.science.cmu.ac.th/tcaep/science/convert/index.htm)

_SI Units_

(http://www.fnrf.science.cmu.ac.th/tcaep/science/siunits/index.htm)

_Symbols_

(http://www.fnrf.science.cmu.ac.th/tcaep/science/symbols/index.htm)

_Printer Version_

(http://www.fnrf.science.cmu.ac.th/tcaep/science/periodic/e/p057.htm)

Science, Periodic Table - Elements - Lanthanum

Symbol La Atomic Number 57 Relative Atomic Mass

12C = 12.0000 138.9055 Atomic Radius

pm 188 First Ionisation Energy

kJ mol-1 538.1 Electronegativity 1.10 Density

kg m-3 6145 [298 K] Molar Volume

cm3 22.60 Thermal Conductivity

W m-1 K-1 13.5 [300 K] Melting Point

K 1194 Boiling Point

K 3730 Number of Isotopes 26 Ground State Electron

Configuration [Xe]5d16s2 Term Symbol 2D3/2 Discovery Discovered by C.G.

Mosander (Stockholm, Sweden) in 1839 Name Derived From Greek lanthanein
meaning 'to lie hidden'

**99.89.3 Challenge: Einstein was precisely backward. (RGrace)**

Subject: Here's the Challenge

From: rgrace@rgrace.org

To: All

Date: Mon., December 20, 2004

I challenge any straight A college student, any college graduate of any discipline, any mainline scientist, any independent researcher, any historian who knows exactly what Einstein said or anyone who thinks you are a spokesman/spokeswoman for Einstein's precision, to, not prove a negative, as in producing evidence that the below premises are incorrect, but to simply answer the 8 questions that leads to Einstein, or his followers, deliberately and erroneously assigning the below concepts to wrong sources: 186,283 mps to light, Space dragging to mass, Space twisting to mass, Geodetic precession to mass, Time to 4D and Gravity caused by mass or Gravity, a derivative of the electron, instead of correctly attributing all these to the true, superior, first cause and source called space.

Einstein was precisely backward, deliberately.

After all, Al, himself cautioned, with inappropriate self-interest to the others, In his stand against the ether, Einstein argued, "we should not speak of things that can't be measured." This mantra was taken up by all others who realized that if it could not be measured, there was really no need for any measurers. (R. Grace, file 147supraphase.html)

If most researchers first deduce from the known, such as, molecule, atom, electron, proton and neutron, to the unknown such as quark, gluon, graviton and the origin and source, space itself, then researchers are working from the controlled forces to the controlling forces...this is backwards and should be reversed:

The 8 questions are:

- Is unknown, space, superior in every way, to the known? Yes or no. Quote Einstein's exact words on this.
- If space is superior, with quanta as a packet of space and charge as phase precession of the smallest vortexes of space, then why was quanta and charge misassigned to lesser forces while ignoring space? Quote Einstein's exact words on this.
- If space is not superior, then what is Einstein's superior source of light, gravity and mass? Quote Einstein's exact words on this.
- Light velocity of 186,283 mps was proven to be the velocity of space in 1990 (Majka). Why do Einstein's followers teach it was light velocity instead? Quote Einstein's exact words on this.
- Gravity is what spiraling space does. Two simple spirals of space either spin the same way or different, creating more space between or removing space between them. Why do Einstein's followers teach that gravity attraction occurs between masses and mass is somehow causing this attraction? Quote Einstein's exact words on this.
- Time is a human invention. In this frequency universe, what we call interval, is vastly different between the fastest sub-atomic time to the slowest astronomic body time, the whole spectrum of which, will require a Trinary Relativity of 3 completely different maths, not including the 3 invisible partner maths to the first, visible 3. Why do Einstein's followers; rigorous science, even today, "assume without examination, the unidirectional, one-valued, one-dimensional (4thD) character of the time continuum." Quote Einstein's exact words on this.
- Light bending is said to be caused by strong gravity near mass. If gravity is not understood by Einstein's followers, if unknown gravity is said to bend light, which light doesn't exist in space for you will never see a flashlight work in space nor is there matter in deep space from which matter, only, does light radiate and if gravity is what space does, if space bends itself into tighter and tighter spirals causing its own distortion, then why do Einstein's followers teach that gravity bends light near mass or that mass bends space when space is superior? Quote Einstein's exact words on this.
- Gravity Probe B will conclude that mass twists, drags and precesses space instead of the reality of space twisting, dragging and precessing mass. Why was Einstein's theories and his followers "precisely backward" concerning so many concepts? Quote Einstein's exact words on this.

Try to be as plain and straightforward and I. No razzle-dazzle or bullshit. Remember, if you cant explain it to a child, you probably don't know what the hell you are talkin about or you are being deceptive. All email responses will be posted including all foul language and email names and addresses. Any email without a valid name and address will be thrown out.

Premises:

186,283 mps was attributed to light instead of to non-dimension space,

Space dragging was attributed to mass instead of to non-dimension space,

Space twisting was attributed to mass instead of to non-dimension space,

Geodetic precession was attributed to mass instead of to non-dimension space,

Gravity was attributed to mass instead of to non-dimension space,

Time was attributed to 4D instead of to 0D gravity,

Light bending was attributed to gravity instead of to optical, non-dimension space,

All because non-dimension space could not easily be measured, therefore the measurers were not needed.

05/19/04 Robert Grace

Robert Grace

rgrace@rgrace.org

**99.89.4 Einstein was precisely backward. (RGrace)**

Re: A New Science Paper

From: terrypp@aemail4u.com

To: SSmith6565@aol.com, rgrace@rgrace.org

Date: Mon, December 20, 2004 8:51 am

Steven,

Well thank you for not being offended at pointed questions. On 5/19/04 I suddenly realized all that was assigned to various media such as light, mass and gravity was not valid at all...the revelation was that space was the source of these phenomena and Einstein and company was full of garbage, probably because they wanted to keep their measuring jobs.

Only on the gravity statement do we somewhat disagree. From what you say below, you demand that any gravity exchange between two defects of space provides a point by which to measure "movement" however, I considered this and concluded that gravity "transfers information without any movement...in reality....by what mechanism?

The Golden Ratio Phi. If you are familiar with Phi and have considered it as what gravity-space is, let me know.

I have no argument with your technical info, its just that I'm so far out in no-mans land, where very few have questioned, that I need some technical advice.

Also, if an engineer needs a real gravity control system, I know at least two very real mechanisms by which the fictitious gravity can be negated. And its not by a anti-gravity mechanism....there is no anti-gravity however there is gravifugal force. I've also studied at least 20 different theories on how it is done.

One method is to simply calculate the velocity by which a spinning ring or disc will begin to negate the "downward" spiral of space toward the earths center (Gravifugal method). I know the calculations and the velocity.

But what I'm really interested in is negating the totally backward philosophy of Al Einstain and company.

Robert

From: SSmith6565@aol.com

Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2004 10:34:02 EST

To: terrypp@aemail4u.com

Subject: Re: A New Science Paper

Hi Robert,

Of course you may continue to mirror my papers. That we disagree on certain points is no cause for doing otherwise. In response to your very lucid exposition (below)... You'll get no argument from me that space is primal. What the philosophers called "Yelm". Before matter, there must be space. Furthermore, I view matter as nothing more than localized "defects" in space. On this point we appear to be in agreement. Where we seem to disagree is in the cause and nature of gravity. Given that matter is localized defects in space, your assertion that "gravity is what space does" is in some sense a valid point. However... Consider the following. Without matter, there can be no movement. Without a "defect" (matter) in space, there is no "point" of reference by which to measure movement. In other words, the manifestation of gravity is what it "transpires" between two "defects" (matter) in space. While your definition of gravity is philosophically sound. It is also singularly unhelpful in engineering gravity control. Gravity control is accomplish by modifying the internal state of matter (space defects). Surely you can appreciate the plight of us poor >engineering types, in our desire to manipulate gravity. :-)))

Part 3 of The Unified Field is now published. I think you will enjoy the fermion animations.

Best regards, Steven

**99.89.5 Cold fusion, G and the electron (Iuliano)**

Subject: Cold fusion, G and the electron

From:JerryIuliano@aol.com

To: rgrace@rgrace.org

Date: Sun, December 26, 2004 3:29 pm

......."Gozzi presented some very striking results, in which bursts of excess energy were time-correlated with bursts of 4 He observed in the gas stream. When compared one at a time, the number of helium atoms detected per burst was on the order of what might be expected from 23.8 MeV per D+D reaction, but with a variation between 0.25 and 1.0 of the this amount. If the energy production in these experiments is in fact due to a reaction mechanism consistent with D+D -> 4 He +23.8 MeV, then it seems that some of the helium may enter the gas stream and some remain within the metal. Several important conclusions can be drawn from the studies cited above: The rate of helium production (atoms/s) varies linearly with excess power for the three studies taken separately and together (see Figure 6). The amount of helium observed in the gas stream is generally within a factor of about 2 less than would be expected for a reaction mechanism consistent with D+D -> 4He. Helium is partially retained, and dissolved helium is released only slowly to the gas phase for analysis.".........

...........What is the substance of the DoE report on the Review submitted by Hagelstein et al? The DoE report accepts the summary situation of the problems submitted by the reviewers:

"The proposers state that the results from the research provide evidence for effects in three categories, as summarized in the review document's Conclusions.

Chapter:

1. 'The existence of a physical effect that produces heat in metal deuterides. The heat is measured in quantities greatly exceeding all known chemical processes and the results are many times in excess of determined errors using several kinds of apparatus. In addition, the observations have been reproduced, can be reproduced at will when the proper conditions are reproduced, and show the same patterns of behavior. Further, many of the reasons for failure to reproduce the heat effect have been discovered.'

2. 'The production of 4He as an ash associated with this excess heat, in amounts commensurate with a reaction mechanism consistent with D+D -> 4He + 23.8 MeV (heat)'.

3. 'A physical effect that results in the emission of: (a) energetic particles consistent with d(d,n) 3 He and d (d,p)t fusions reactions, and (b) energetic alphas and protons with energies in excess of 10 MeV, and other emissions not consistent with deuteron-deuteron reactions.' ".........

....the electron energy...emev... is extracted from G, gravitational constant, and theta, Golden Mean, from the above equation since:

23.800057052mev = ( 12 + ( theta / 10 )) / emev

...gravitational G, is double log electron ... emev ... through 12:

10 ^ (( 10 ^ ( emev ^ 2 )) - 12 ) = G = 6.674205594 * ( 10 ^ -11 ) = 2004 NIST

log(logG + 12 ) = emev ^ 2

...it can be shown that the generated energy ...2.38 mev.... can be attributed to the gravitational constant as a growing gnomonic growth controlled by the golden mean:

log(logG +12 ) = log(logG + (( emev * 23.80005702mev ) - ( theta/10 ))) = emev ^ 2

...where:

G = gravitational constant = 6.6742005594 * ( 10 ^ - 11 ) M^3/kg/s^2

emev = electron energy in electron volts = .510998986mev...2004
NIST..998918mev

theta = 1.6180339875...

J.Iuliano

**99.89.6 Einstein was precisely backward. (RGrace)**

Re: A New Science Paper

From: terrypp@aemail4u.com

To: SSmith6565@aol.com, rgrace@rgrace.org

Date: Sat, Jan 1, 2005

Can you answer these simple questions in **bold**?

Steve,

Your quotes:

"Where we seem to disagree is in the cause and nature of gravity. Given that matter is localized defects in space, your assertion that "gravity is what space does" is in some sense a valid point. However... Consider the following. Without matter, there can be no movement. Without a "defect" (matter) in space, there is no "point" of reference by which to measure movement. In other words, the manifestation of gravity is what it "transpires" between two "defects" (matter) in space. While your definition of gravity is philosophically sound. It is also singularly unhelpful in engineering gravity control. Gravity control is accomplish by modifying the internal state of matter (space defects).

"Without matter there can be no movement".

**Does space move, curve, undulate, precess or oscillate?**

"Without a "defect" (matter) in space, there is no "point" of reference by which to measure movement."

**Was there movement when, in the beginning, straight line force of space began to curve into a spiraling, center-seeking force, all before any matter collected in the center of this spiral?**

"Gravity control is accomplish by modifying the internal state of matter (space defects)."

**Why is there no such thing as solid matter?**

"In other words, the manifestation of gravity is what it "transpires" between two "defects" (matter) in space."

**How do you describe the origin and cause of two "points" of matter?**

"Gravity control is accomplish by modifying the internal state of matter (space defects)."

**Space "defects" used to be called "Fouhats holes". If a Fouhat hole in space is not a spiral of space, then what is the correct definition?**

Robert

rgrace@rgrace.org

**99.89.7 Einstein was precisely backward. (SSmith)**

> Re: A New Science Paper

> From: SSmith6565@aol.com

> To: rgrace@rgrace.org, terrypp@aemail4u.com

> Date: Sat, Jan 1, 2005

>Can you answer these simple questions in bold?

> Steve,

Your quotes:

"Where we seem to disagree is in the cause and nature of gravity.

> Given that matter is localized defects in space, your assertion that

> "gravity is what space does" is in some sense a valid point.

> However... Consider the following. Without matter, there can be no

> movement. Without a "defect" (matter) in space, there is no "point" of

> reference by which to measure movement. In other words, the

> manifestation of gravity is what it "transpires" between two "defects"

> (matter) in space. While your definition of gravity is philosophically

> sound. It is also singularly unhelpful in engineering gravity control.

> Gravity control is accomplish by modifying the internal state of

> matter (space defects).

**My second response: My point is that universe cares nothing about whether we can measure or not. It understands resonance.**

> "Without matter there can be no movement".

> **Does space move, curve, undulate, precess or oscillate?**

Of course space is capable of these movements,

yet without matter you have no way to measure a change in space.

Light could also serve as a measurement tool, but light also

requires matter for it's emission and absorption.

Movement that cannot be measured exists in the realm

of philosophy (or perhaps religion), rather than science.

**My second response: Again, universe rolls on and on whether we measure or not. Reality does not understand our measurements and has no regard for them. It understands ratio.**

> "Without a "defect" (matter) in space, there is no "point" of

> reference by which to measure movement."

>**Was there movement when, in the beginning, straight line
> force of space began to curve into a spiraling,
> center-seeking force, all before any matter collected in
> the center of this spiral?**

Without matter to facilitate the measurement of movement,

this question has no testable answer.

**My second response: Universe needs no testable answer, you do.**

Also F=Ma (force equals mass multiplied by acceleration)

Without mass (matter) force has no definition.

**My second response: Universe cares nothing about F=Ma and does not recognize it. It understand only ratio, 0, 1 and how to process with its own elements.**

> "Gravity control is accomplish by modifying the internal state

> of matter (space defects)."

> **Why is there no such thing as solid matter?**

Because matter is nothing more than defects in space itself.

> "In other words, the manifestation of gravity is what it

> "transpires" between two "defects" (matter) in space."

>** How do you describe the origin and cause of two
> "points" of matter?**

The word I used was "defects", not "points".

As to the origin and cause of matter, please review

my electrodynamic space paper, section 2.3.5

I think you will find the divergence of our viewpoints

to be more a question of semantics than true disagreement.

2.3.5 Thermodynamic Consequences:

The process of nuclear fusion in stars converts matter to energy.
Being a natural process, it must also be an exothermic process, radiating the electromagnetic energy into a heat sink.
The act of energy radiation, implies this heat sink is the future state or condition of the universe, since radiation through space is also through time (2.2.1).
An expanding electrodynamic space guarantees that tomorrow will always be colder than today, and supplies the stars with a perpetual heat sink.
Without space expansion, the physical universe would reach thermal equilibrium, and the stars would cease to shine.
A further and wholly unexpected consequence of space expansion, is that as the physical universe cools down through the process of expansion, the internal temperature of space rises, eventually becoming meta-stable and spawning (boiling) a new universe into existence! (1.4.2)
Another way to view this is that a young universe is physically hot and spatially cold, while an old universe is physically cold and spatially hot.
Here is our alternate process of creation to replace the big bang.

**My second response: Section 2.3.5 recognizes two opposite processes similar to the expansion/contraction on the topology of a Toroidal Universe.**

> "Gravity control is accomplish by modifying the internal state

> of matter (space > defects)."

**My second response: It is accomplished by resonance with universal space.**

>**Space "defects" used to be called "Fouhats holes". If a
> Fouhat hole in space is not a spiral of space, then what is
> the correct definition?**

>Please review my electrodynamic space paper,

sections 1.3.4 & 2.2.2

2.2.2 Matter/Energy:

Matter arises as defects (unpaired particles) embedded in a frictionless substrate of dipole pairs that comprise electrodynamic space (1.3.4).
Energy arises as electromagnetic waves or alignment correlations in the dipole pairs that comprise electrodynamic space.
Our matter/energy equivalence [part 1, eq.2] implies that all natural forces have as their roots, a unified electromagnetic field, propagated through an electrodynamic space.
Therefore any shift in the dielectric and paramagnetic polarization values of space, will cause a corresponding change in the coupling coefficients of all natural forces, and the internal energy content of all matter embedded in that modified space.
For instance, a rise in polarization values of space, results in a lower electron orbital binding energy, and a consequent red shift in atomic line spectra.

**My second response: Electrified plasma of space is not the same as a scalar non-medium called Aether. Gravitic information transfers/communicates to centers called matter by longitudinal spinwave transfer through precession of Anu, below the De Broglie length, by the only perfect implosion ratio in existence, Phi, not by propagation, traveling or transverse movement. This Phi ratio is found in formula in the form v ^{2}/c^{2} or sqrtÃ(v/c).**

Best regards,

Steven

**99.89.8 Einstein was precisely backward. (RGrace)**

Re: A New Science Paper

From: terrypp@aemail4u.com

To: SSmith6565@aol.com, rgrace@rgrace.org

Date: Tues, Jan 4, 2005

Your quote:

"While your definition of gravity is philosophically sound. It is also singularly unhelpful in engineering gravity control. Gravity control is accomplish by modifying the internal state of matter (space defects)."

**You say you're interested in controlling gravity, yet, it isn't logical to want to control gravity before we know how to create a independent gravitic field. You recognized one important concept:**

"the magnetic field associated with the orbital electron can be viewed as a torus centered on the orbital path of the electron."

**You also note that the internal state of matter needs to be modified. Both "matter" and "modified" are not applicable at this time. Study this diagram. I already know what it means. Tell me what it means to you. Also, show what measurements you can extrapolate from it:**

Robert Grace

rgrace@rgrace.org

**99.89.9 Three Forms of 82944 (Iuliano)**

Three Forms of 82944

From: Jerryiuliano@aol.com

To: rgrace@rgrace.org

Date: Wed., Jan 5, 2005

Sir:

Three forms of the... 82944 ^ Pi...module:

APERY'S constant = 1.202056...

electron = emev =..51099926

aem = fine-structure constant = 1/137.036000986

((( 82944 ^ ( 1 / Pi )) * .666 ) + 10 ) * ( emev ^ 5 ) = 1.202056...

((( cos137.036000986 ) * 66.6 ) + 10 ) * ( emev ^ 5 ) = 1.202056...

...."the number defined by the formula sigma/3 = sum 1/(n^3), where sigma = the Reimann zeta function: It has the value 1.202056... and gives the odds ( 1 in 1.206056..) of any three positive integers, picked at random, having no common divisor."......

CATLAN'S constant = .915965... e = natural log e = 2.718281828...

( 82944 + ( .915965 * 5 )) ^ ( 1 / Pi ) = 100 / e

...." a constant that crops up regularly in combinatorial problems, especially in the evaluation of certain infinite series and integrals, it is equal to:

1 - ( 1/ 3^2 ) + ( 1 / 5^2 ) - ( 1 / 7^2 ) + ( 1 / 9^2 )...infinite = .915965.... "

KHINTCHINE'S constant = 2.685452...

electron = emev = .51100043mev

proton = pmev = 938.272029mev

((( 82944 ^ ( 1 / Pi )) * 6.66 ) + 3) / 666 = 1 / 2.68545

(( 666 / 2.685452 ) - 3 ) / ( emev ^ 2 ) = pmev

(( 666 / 2.685452 ) - 3 ) / 666 = cos137.036000245

...." one of the most remarkable, yet poorly understood, constants in mathematics, which captures, in a fascinating way, the behavior of almost all real numbers. Pick a real number at random and write it down as a continued fraction. Almost certainly, the geometric mean of the terms in this continued fraction will be Khintchine's constant, which has the value 2.685452...."

FEIGENBAUM delta constant = 4.669201609....

(Êtan^-1(( cos137.036000986 ) ^ -Pi )) + Pi = 4.6692043132...

( tan^-1(( 100 ^ Pi ) / 82944 )) + Pi = 4.6692043132...

......" a universal constant that governs the behavior of systems that are approaching chaos; it was discoveredÊby the physicist Mitchell Feigenbaum in 1975 and has the value 4.6692....All one-dimensional chaotic systems have a behavior as they approach instability, known as period doubling. The Feigenbaum constant gives the rate at which the period of the system doubles.".....

J.Iuliano

The relationship between the Viswanath golden ratio constant....K = 1.13198.....Êand Pi can be demonstrated as the gnomonic growth wiring function of the "collective unconscious" constant...(37*18 = 666). K equals the matrix derived solution constant of N'th degree that instantly derives order in a disordered cyclic system.....as follows:

( 666 ^ K )Ê/Ê500 = Pi = 3.141592654

....or to isolate the "collective unconscious" constant:

666 = 37*18 = ( 500 * Pi ) ^ ( 1 / K )

...whereÊK = 1.1319812464.....and actual K (Viswanath) equals K(v) =Ê 1.13198824....

This answers a question of a linkÊ to the Cheops pyramid that up till now had no link directly to the collective unconscious numbers of the 144/37 form. For it can be demonstrated that 1000 base legs of the Cheops pyramid divided by the height of Cheops pyramid is the Viswanath constant in disguise...as follows:

Let ht = 486.256 ft..= height..( Churchward / Massey (1910 expedition)

Let bl = 763809.1387 ft...= base leg ..(Churchward / Massey = 763.81 ft)

( bl / ht ) ^ ( 1 / K ) = 37 * 18 = 666

The Viswanath constant...K.. , for the first time, links the Cheops ratio directly with the "collective unconscious" number constants of a mythological derivation (fine-structure constant through the collective unconscious ratio 144/37)....Hindu (yugaÊ =108), Aztec (sacred Alautun number 2304), Christian (Book of Revelations 666 and 144), Islam (57 cyclic), Hebrew, (288 sparks from broken vessels), Druid.. (144 single light), Plato's cyclic (25920), Stonehenge (288 dia.), Sumerian (Inanna number 252)....etc.... religions with modern day visionary mystics such asÊ Leahy (82944) and R. Tomes (3456 *24), Divitry (12th century) 288 harmonic studies.....etc...the Viswanath constant is probably linked to Feigenbaum's constant somehow because of the order to disorder to order to disorder to order to.... infinity form of both constants....

J.Iuliano

... computer scientist Divakar Viswanath of the Mathematical Sciences Research Institute in Berkeley, Calif., has taken a fresh look at Fibonacci numbers and unexpectedly discovered a new mathematical constant: the number 1.13198824.

---------

http://sciencenews.org/sn_arc99/6_12_99/bob1.htm

Tom

..........The new Fibonacci constant referenced in the article above...e ^p = 1.13198824 = K , where p = 0.123975599....., is referenced as having a connection to some kind of randomly generated order linking to the chaos/order forms of the Feigenbaum constant...F = 4.669201609...exact... This linkage is through Beta (.37), the anomalous exponent from second-order phase transitions, as follows:

1 / ( 4.669076928 ^2 ) / .37 = IN 1.13198824 = 0.123975599

Even though this a very accurate approximation of the Feigenbaum constant, the new Fibonacci constant crumbles, totally,Êunder the power of the Cheops constructs...ht/bl...: Using exact values for the Feigenbaum constant...F = 4.669201609.... and the exact value for the new Fibonacci constant...e ^ pÊ = K = 1.13198824... then it can be demonstrated:

F - ( 3 * K ) = ht * 2 / bl

....where ht = height Cheops pyramid = 486.2555341 ft where bl = base leg Cheops pyramid = 763.81 ft where K = e ^ 0.123975599 = 1.13198824..

(reference, below, Churchward/Massey 1910 expedition to Egypt..where

ht = 486.256 ft and bl = 763.81 ft)

This is an incredible equation!! The fine structure constant falls out immediately through Beta (.37):

( .37^2 ) / ( 10 ^ ( 4.669202841 - ( 3 * K ))) = a(em) = 1/137.03599976

Also once you are in the cusp mode of the Cheops constructs...10^(ht*2/bl)...Fermat's Last Theorem form shows up in the strong force...a(s) = 14:

( 10 ^ ( 4.669202841 - ( 3 * K ))) * a(s) = e ^ (( Pi + 8.00000024)/2)

The collective unconscious constant...144/37 = 3.891891...is directly related to this form:

( 10 ^ (( F - ( 3 * K )) / 2 )) = ( 10 ^ ( 143.9999651 / 37 )) / 18

which is related to fine structure as:

( 10 ^ ( 143.9999879 / 37 )) / 18 / 37 = sqrt 137.03599976...

The central equation...F - ( 3 * K ) = ht * 2 / bl ....has tremendous philosophical implications...Mandelbrot fractal parameters( Feigenbaum constant) , new Fibonacci constant (Golden Section)..order from random Fibonacci integers, Beta (.37) the ruler of second order phase transitions, the fine-structure constant..a(em)... even as of today still the the greatest mystery in physics, and the ratio of the Cheops pyramid constructs...ht/bl... the largest and most mysterious of earth'sÊunnatural structures. By the way the integer 37 cracked the mystery of the new Fibonacci constant in less than five minutes....

J.Iuliano.

**99.89.10 "37 and 57" (Iuliano)**

Subject: 37 and 57

From: JerryIuliano@aol.com

To: rgrace@rgrace.org

Date: Sun, January 9, 2005 11:36 am

MP:

Again as noted on the original Fermat form discovery:

( X^n) + ( Y^n ) = ( Z^n )

...subclass:

( X ^ N ) + ( ( X + 1 )^N ) = ( X + 3 )^N

...where solved in integers:

X = 32*n + 9

N = 9*n + 3

...n is a direct result of the relationship of a coefficient to exponent...X(N)... function that is generated as the integer ...37...solves for solution nodes in which there are 57 units per cycle ( per 1000 ) modulo to 10000 ( 1000*10 ) dimensions per unit cycle which is doublely periodic, a mathematical torus. The integers 57 and 37 are THE significant players as shown by their atomic relationships Rubidium and Lanthanum....

J.Iuliano

**99.89.11 Feigenbaum alpha and delta constants and fine-structure (Iuliano)**

Subject: Feigenbaum alpha and delta constants and fine-structure

From: JerryIuliano@aol.com

To: rgrace@rgrace.org

Date: Sat, January 15, 2005 2:21 pm

MP

The Feigenbaum alpha ( 2.502907875 ) and delta ( 4.669201609 ) constants have an amazing holographic relationship with the electromagnetic fine-structure constant...aem = 1/137.036... and Pi as follows:

Feigenbaum alpha = Falpha = 2.502907875

Feigenbaum delta = Fdelta = 4.669201609

#1...aem and 40:

( 137.036 / 40 ) ^ ( Falpha ^ 2 ) = 4.669236604...

#2...Falpha, Pi, and aem:...Falpha = 2.502907878..(( Pi ^ Pi ) - 1 ) * ( Pi ^ 2 ) * ( Falpha ^ 2 ) / 16 = 137.036

#3...Fdelta, natural log e, harmonic mean of 57 and 37...Fdelta = 4.669201924

(( 1/57 + 1/37 ) ^ 2 ) * ( e ^ 8 ) * ( tan Fdelta ) = 137.036

...the first type is of the collective unconscious form:

( 137.036 / 4 / .00037 ) = 92591.891891891.. = 3425900 / 37

...dropping the four (4) and multiplying by Beta (.37):

( log ( 137.036 * ( .370000606 ^ 2 ))) / 4 = 1/ Pi:

....which means 82944 can derive cosine inverse fine-structure constant through the holographic effect of the fine-structure constant itself:

...cosine in radians

( 82944 ^ (( log ( 137.036 * ( .370000606 ^ 2 ))) / 4 )) / 100 = cos 137.036000986

...the log of this form is the Cheops pyramid constructs:

height = ht = 486.256 ft

base leg = bl = 763.81 ft...Churchward/Massey 1910 expedition

( 10 ^ ( 486.2565481 * 2 / 763.81 )) / ( .370000606 ^ 2 ) = 137.036

...amazingly using the natural log e with the Feigenbaum alpha and delta constants creates the Cheops constructs...ht / bl:...Fdelta = 4.669765083

ht / bl = 2 / Pi = ( log ( 137.036 * ( .370000606 ^ 2 ))) / 2

ht / bl = 2 / Pi = ( e ^ ( Fdelta ^ ( 1 / Falpha ))) / 10

The 3-dimensional shrinking of the Golden mean volumne...(1.6180339875 * (10 ^ 62 )...is a function of the Feigenbaum alpha and delta constants:

Let M = the volumne = 1.6180339875... * ( 10 ^ 62 )...then the cubed root of the cubed root of the cubed root of the cubed root of the cubed root of the cubed root of M equals 1.2171236...

Falpha ^ ( 1 / Fdelta ) = 1.21712361404

((((((( M ^ ( 1/3 ))^(1/3))^(1/3))^(1/3))^(1/3))^(1/3)) = 1.21712361304...

...simplifying to: theta = 1.6180339875.= the golden mean..

( theta * ( 10 ^ 62 )) ^ ( 1/ 729 ) = Falpha ^ ( 1 / Fdelta )

...what happens if you combine both equations as a symmetrical subtraction? The Planck mass is derived: Mp = Planck mass = 2.176449594 * ( 10 ^ - 8 ) kilograms..(electron form)

( Fdelta ^ ( 1 / Falpha )) - ( Falpha ^ ( 1 / Fdelta ) = .633789534... 1.850913148 - 1.217123614

( Mp * ( 10 ^ 14 )) ^ ( -1/32 ) = .633789961....

....10 ^ 14 is equivalent to the permittivity of space form due to

10 ^ 14 = 16 * ( Pi ^ 2 ) * ( E ^ 2 ) * ( c ^ 4 )

E = permittivity of space = 8.854187818 * ( 10 ^ - 12 )Fm

c = speed of light metric = 299792458 m/s

...using the double log, electronmev value for Planck mass(Mp)

G = gravitational constant = 6.674205594 * ( 10 ^ - 11 )

G = h * c / 2 / Pi / ( Mp ^ 2 )

log(logG + 12 ) = ( .510998986mev ^ 2 ) = electron squared

...then the Planck mass predicts a value of ...Fdelta^(1/Falpha) = 1.850913575..:

( Fdelta ^ ( 1 / Falpha )) - (( Mp* ( 10^14 ))^ (-1/32)) = Falpha ^ ( 1 / Fdelta)

J.Iuliano

**99.89.12 Fwd: Re: Einstein was precisely backward. (SSmith)**

Subject: Fwd: Re: A New Science Paper

From: Terry Wilcock

To: rgrace@rgrace.org

Date: Thu, January 20, 2005 10:46 am

--- Begin forwarded message:

From: SSmith6565@aol.com

Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 06:11:28 EST

To: terrypp@aemail4u.com

Subject: Re: A New Science Paper

SSmith: Hi Robert,

In a message dated 1/6/2005 9:59:31 AM Pacific Standard Time, terrypp@aemail4u.com writes:

**> I haven't heard from you for the longest time. I haven't posted anything else other than your response to the questions I asked. I'm still waiting for you to send me something about the circle Diagram I sent. Are you completely baffled by it, still studying it or are you offended that creating levitation is not what you thought it was?**

SSmith: I must apologize for the delay in responding. I've been out of town, and just got back two days ago. Been answering a pile of email, and I'm just getting caught up...

Here's my reply to your rebuttal.

>>SSmith quote: "While your definition of gravity is philosophically sound. It is also singularly unhelpful in engineering gravity control. Gravity control is accomplish by modifying the internal state of matter (space defects)."

**> You say you're interested in controlling gravity, yet, it isn't logical to want to control gravity before we know how to create a independent gravitic field. You recognized one important concept:
**

**>> "the magnetic field associated with the orbital electron can be viewed as a torus centered on the orbital path of the electron."**

SSmith: Since the defining equation for the gravitational force is:

F = G (m1 * m2)/r^2

There can be no such thing as an "independent gravitic field".

**> You also note that the internal state of matter needs to be modified. Both "matter" and "modified" are not applicable at this time. Study this diagram. I already know what it means. Tell me what it means to you. Also, show what measurements you can extrapolate from it:**

SSmith: To state that "matter" and "modified" are as you say "not applicable", is scientifically, and mathematically incorrect. (see equation above).

> DIAGRAM

SSmith: Since your diagram is predicated upon what I believe to be an incorrect foundation, it is not relevant and I shall refrain from comment upon it. In summation:

SSmith: You have stated your position concerning gravity in a concise manner for all to see. You believe it to be right. I believe it to be without scientific or engineering merit.

SSmith: While I have enjoyed this exchange of viewpoints immensely, any further response would be a waste of my time. Therefore this debate is over... If you wish to continue, it will have to be as a monologue.

SSmith: End of summation.

SSmith: One last detail. I do not believe the debate page should be linked inside my papers. This is not appropriate. A link on your main menu, above or below my papers is more proper. Thanks in advance for fixing this detail.

PS please be sure to include my summation.

Best regards,

Steven

**99.89.13 Fwd: Re: Einstein was precisely backward. (RGrace)**

Subject: 2Re: A New Science Paper

From: Terry Wilcock terrypp@aemail4u.com

To: SSmith6565@aol.com, rgrace@rgrace.org

Date: Thu, January 20, 2005 11:24 am

Steve,

A certain, "Darby", on a Anomalies BBS, says the same. I have always argued with him that gravity is no more a pull of so called particles nor is it a push of space. However, he, like you, still cannot conceive that two spiraling vortexes of space either draw together or apart, eliminating space or creating space between them. We call it + and - but it is just in phase or out of phase.

Darby also, as is evident, still believe that mass warps space when it is space that warps itself. I also tried to show him that if you build any system that mimics the whole or part of universe, then that machine will perform exactly like that whole or part of universe. To create an independent gravity is as simple as Searl taking a three ring section thru a torus and sucking positive massless-mass into its center and expelling negative electrons out the rim, in 12 vortexes, as demonstrated in the formulae below, in 99.89.14. In this way it mimics the 13-ball-Vector Equilibrium and generates its own gravity, because the configuration of the 13-ball-Vector Equilibrium is the base-shape where gravity first occurs. Of course, the Diagram was a strict reminder that all measurements have to be perfectly geometric and Kepler, Newton nor Einstain learned this.

Regards,

Robert

Darby's Nonsense:

In Kepler's world, and as ultimately expressed by Newton, gravity was an "action at a distance", a pull, if you will - expressed as:

F_g = (G * M_1 * M_2)/d^2

The "force" of gravity was a pull expressed as the Universal Gravitational Constant ("G") times the mass of the two objects ("M_1" and "M_2") divided by the square of the distance ("d") between the gravitational center of each mass.

In General Relativity this is no longer the case. GTR does not rely on "action at a distance" to explain gravity. GTR states that all objects, like planets or photons, trace out straight lines as they travel. Mass, however, has the effect of bending (warping) space-time. The planets do travel in a straight line as they o(r)bit the Sun, but space-time around the Sun is ben(t) into a circle. The objects aren't "pulling" each other at all. Darby, Anomalies BBS

**99.89.14 Fwd: Re: Einstein was precisely backward. (SSmith)**

Subject: 2Re: A New Science Paper

From: SSmith6565@aol.com

To: terrypp@aemail4u.com,

Date: Thu, January 20, 2005 11:24 am

--- SSmith6565@aol.com wrote:

From: SSmith6565@aol.com

Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 06:11:28 EST

To: terrypp@aemail4u.com

Subject: Re: A New Science Paper

Hi Robert,

In a message dated 1/6/2005 9:59:31 AM Pacific Standard Time, terrypp@aemail4u.com writes:

**>> I haven't heard from you for the longest time. I haven't posted anything else other than your response to the questions I asked. I'm still waiting for you to send me something about the circle Diagram I sent. Are you completely baffled by it, still studying it or are you offended that creating levitation is not what you thought it was?**

SSmith: I must apologize for the delay in responding. I've been out of town, and just got back two days ago. Been answering a pile of email, and I'm just getting caught up...

SSmith: Here's my reply to your rebuttal.

>> SSmith quote: "While your definition of gravity is philosophically sound. It is also singularly unhelpful in engineering gravity control. Gravity control is accomplish by modifying the internal state of matter (space defects)."

**> You say you're interested in controlling gravity, yet, it isn't logical to want to control gravity before we know how to create a independent gravitic field. You recognized one important concept:**

>> SSmith quote: "the magnetic field associated with the orbital electron can be viewed as a torus centered on the orbital path of the electron."

SSmith: Since the defining equation for the

gravitational force is:

SSmith: F = G (m1 * m2)/r^2

There can be no such thing as an "independent
gravitic field".

**> You also note that the internal state of matter needs to be modified. Both "matter"; and "modified" are not applicable at this time. Study this diagram. I already know what it means. Tell me what it means to you. Also, show what measurements you can extrapolate from it:**

To state that "matter" and "modified" are as you say "not applicable", is scientifically, and mathematically incorrect. (see equation above).

> DIAGRAM

SSmith: Since your diagram is predicated upon what I believe to be an incorrect foundation, it is not relevant and I shall refrain from comment upon it.

SSmith: In summation:

SSmith: You have stated your position concerning gravity in a concise manner for all to see. You believe it to be right. I believe it to be without scientific or engineering merit.

SSmith: While I have enjoyed this exchange of viewpoints immensely, any further response would be a waste of my time. Therefore this debate is over... If you wish to continue, it will have to be as a monologue.

SSmith: End of summation.

SSmith: One last detail. I do not believe the debate page should be linked inside my papers. This is not appropriate. A link on your main menu, above or below my papers is more proper. Thanks in advance for fixing this detail.

PS please be sure to include my summation.

Best regards,

Steven

**99.89.14 Fwd: Re: Einstein was precisely backward. (RGrace)**

Subject: 2Re: A New Science Paper

From: Terry Wilcock terrypp@aemail4u.com

To: SSmith6565@aol.com, rgrace@rgrace.org

Date: Fri, January 21, 2005

Steve Sir,

Now we have created a big problem for ourselves when we believe two gravity fields cannot be created independently of each other...or that "matter" exists. Imagine two "independent" planets called - and -. It's obvious these two are similar and will be repulsive. Again, imagine two suns called + and +. We know these two sun will repulse. I can say that two suns will never, ever be seen to collide. I know this makes dumb people howl but they will never, ever, ever, ever see two suns collide.....why? Because they are two independent suns with two independent electric, magnetic and gravitic fields.

Do you agree that two suns have similar fields? If so, you must also be wondering why suns keep their distance from other suns.

If you say two suns have the same fields and share the same fields you might also be wondering why they never crash into each other.

Did you know that the sun, planets in our solar system and atomics all are governed by the same Phi ratio, logarithmic spiral as is the Phi Diagram, I showed you, then you say it is "predicated upon what I believe to be an incorrect foundation, (and) it is not relevant".

Steven, it cannot be More relevant, however, for some irrational un-reason, you dismiss the logarithmic foundation of the solar system and Searls copy of the solar system in the form of a toroidal disc section through a torus.

What now? Tell me what you think makes the Searl disc gather velocity and shoot off into space.

It is more than the irrational push/pull arguments, concerning Newton, Kepler and Einstein's goofy explanations of gravity. Surely you cannot settle for merely explaining Searls disc by some motion of "ions" or "electrons" shooting off the disc or mere "forces" of EM? You already admitted "the magnetic field associated with the orbital electron can be viewed as a torus centered on the orbital path of the electron." You are aware of geometry, here. Then you reverse your opinion when I show you the complete geometric, harmonic, Phi circles of three "perfectly Phi nested tori", that govern the disc.

What do you think the "Law of the Squares" means?

Additionally, with all your pages, you never seem to say what the Searl disc, the solar system and atomic systems all have in common, such as the logarithmic, perfect formulae of Phi, found in atomics, as theta, which Newton, Kepler nor Einstein ever intuited:

Section 99.89.5 Cold fusion, G and the electron:

log(logG +12 ) = log(logG + (( emev * 23.80005702mev ) - ( theta/10 ))) = emev ^ 2...where:

G = gravitational constant = 6.6742005594 * ( 10 ^ - 11 ) M^3/kg/s^2

emev = electron energy in electron volts = .510998986mev...2004 NIST..998918mev

theta = 1.6180339875...

And, by the way, you have overlooked two glaring mistakes in your paper on Electrogravitics - A Crash Course, Part 3, no matter how perfectly correct you believe your theory to be, as noted,

"Will a Searl derived levitation craft ever become reality? Is a revolutionary breakthrough is needed? A new and hitherto unknown scientific principal required? In a word, no... Just the application of a comprehensive theory of electrogravitics, as I have so amply demonstrated herein."

Note that you have overlooked using the word "is" twice in one sentence. Please make the necessary corrections.

With regards,

Robert

terrypp@aemail4u.com

Subject: TOE

From: JerryIuliano@aol.com

To: rgrace@rgrace.org

Date: Sun, January 23, 2005 12:08 pm

Sir:

As a mathematical factor, the integer 18 excels as a unification tool in the product of the "weights"( without dimension ) of the four fundamental forces of Nature...G, aem a(s) and Gw. Why product instead of sum? Because the weights are treated equally only as product since sum would always be approximately, 14 or strong force.

G = gravitational force = 6.674205549 * ( 10 ^ -11 )

aem = fine-structure constant = 1 / 137.03599911

Gw = fermi-coupler or weak force = .000011664 * ( 10 ^ -5 )

a(s) = strong force (14) gluon = 13.99996741

.....the main equation is cyclotomic- Laplacian ( natural log e to the 2/Pi power)

1 / Gw / a(s) / ( 18 ^ 2 ) / 10 = e ^ ( 2 / Pi )

.....the electron charge..ec .. is used with the fractal dimension of light speed...c = 299792458 m/s ....and 18 to become the dimensionless fine-structure constant aem:

aem = ( ec ^ 2 ) / 2 / E / h / c

G = h *c / 2 / Pi / ( Mp ^ 2 )

Gw = Gf / (( h-bar / c ) ^ 3 )

.....the fractal of light...3.1... shows the simplification of two complex forms...aem and G ( long range forces ) as a reduction through 18:

ec = electron charge = 1.60217653 * ( 10 ^ -19 )

h = Planck's constant = 6.626069287 * ( 10 ^ - 34 )

c = speed of light = 299792458

Mp = 2.176449596 * ( 10 ^ - 8 )

e = natural log e = 2.718281828

Pi = 3.141592654

....then as follows:

( ec ^ 2 ) * ( c ^ 3.1 ) / ( e ^ ( 2 / Pi )) / ( 180 ^ 2 ) = aem * G * a(s) * Gw

...this is a TOE equation, all four fundamental forces united by the electron charge...ec... and light speed...c... key players here, light speed fractal....3.1... and 180, ( factor of a radian, 180 / Pi = radian ). 180 is a dimensional factor of the four forces product , possibly meaning everything is an angle:

aem * a(s) * G * Gw *((Pi * radian) ^ 2 ) = ( ec ^ 2 ) * ( c ^ 3.1 ) / ( e ^ ( 2 / Pi ))

How accurate is the equation above? Using 2002 NIST values as a percentage and 12 measured constants to 9 decimal places:

2002 NIST formula %

aem = 1/137.03599911...................exact................................100

h = 6.626069287 * ( 10 ^ - 34 )J........exact...............................100

c = 299792458m/s..........................exact.................................100

G = 6.6742 *( 10 ^ -11)......... 6.674205594 * ( 10 ^ -11 )..............100

as = 14 ( Michio Kaku)................13.999967411.........................99.9998

Gw = .0000116639(2)...................000011664.............................100

ec = 1.60217653 * ( 10 ^ -19 )...........exact.................................100

e = 2.718281828..............................exact................................ 100

Mp = 2.7176449594 * ( 10 ^ - 8 ).......exact..................................100

Pi = 3.141592654.............................exact.................................100

E = 8/.854187818 * ( 10 ^ -12 )..........exact..................................100

Gf = 3.685861944 * ( 10 ^ -82 )..........exact..................................100

To place the TOE formula into a cyclotomic - Laplacian form one can reduce the formula to:

E * ( Mp ^ 2 ) * ( h^3 ) * ( c ^ 6.1 ) / a(s) / Gf / ( Pi ^ 2 ) / 64800 = e ^ ( Pi ^ 2 )

...E represents electromagnetism, Mp represents gravity, h represents the quantum unit, Gf represents the weak force, Pi the unit circle, a(s) remains unchanged, and then there is the integer 64800, which is called a highly composite number having numerous factors, such as:

64800 = 3600 * 18 ( Earth diameter 3600 )

64800 = 2592 * 25 ( Platonic 2592 )

64800 = 82944 / 1.28 ( Perfect number 128 )..etc..

...the fractal 6.1 on light speed is quite exotic, representing a huge velocity..warp 6.1 light speed. However the main equation.....e^(2/Pi)... uses only nuclear carrier forces in its reduction Gw, fermi coupler for the weak force, and a(s) strong force gluon:

REDUCTION: nuclear carrier particles: Gw and a(s):

1 / Gw / a(s) / ( 18 ^ 2 ) / 10 = e ^ ( 2/Pi )

EXPANSION: four fundamental force carriers:

E * ( Mp ^ 2 ) * ( h ^ 3 ) * ( c ^ 6.1 ) / a(s) / Gf / ( Pi ^ 2 ) / 64800 = e ^ ( 2/Pi )

....which interprets as all fundamental forces have origins in the nuclear force carriers:

E.....electronic

Mp....gravitational

h.....electronic, gravitational, nuclear

c.....electronic, gravitational, nuclear

a(s)...strong force

Gf...weak force

Pi...unit circle

Because of Gf's relationship to the first principles of energy..... proton = pmev = 938.272029 mev and electron = emev = .510998986mev , through the delta ordering constant of Feigenbaum...F = 4.669201609..you can replace Gf as:

( c * h-bar ) ^ 3 = Gf * pmev * F * 10 / emev

Gf = (( c * h-bar ) ^ 3 ) * emev / pmev / F / 10

...substituting Gf by the proton-electron-Feigenbaum constants and placing them into the expansion formula for the TOE equation reduces to the equivalences:

a(s) * emev * 810 / ( Mp ^ 2 ) / E / Pi / pmev / F / 10 = e ^ ( 2 / Pi ) 1 / Gw / a(s) / ( 18 ^ 2 ) / 10 = e ^ ( 2 / Pi )

E * ( Mp ^ 2 ) * ( h ^ 3 ) * ( c ^ 6.1 ) / a(s) / Gf / ( Pi ^ 2 ) / 64800 = e ^ ( 2 / Pi )

...interesting to note that since the cyclotomic form...e^(2/Pi)...is the identity, then one can substitute for the Eulerian form for complex to real number mathematics:i = square root of negative one:

e ^ ( i*Pi) = -1

e ^ ( 2 / Pi )) ^ (( -Pi ^ 2 ) / 4 ) = i ^ i

...such that:

REDUCTON FORM:

1 / Gw / a(s) / ( 18 ^ 2 ) / 10 ) ^ (( -Pi ^ 2 ) / 4 ) = i ^ i

...to convert to Euler's equation:

EULERIAN FORM:

e ^ ( Pi * (( 1 / Gw / a(s) / ( 18 ^ 2 ) / 10 )^ (( -Pi ^ 2 ) / 4 / i ))) = -1

J.Iuliano

**99.89.16 Fractal light gravity (Iuliano)**

Subject: Fractal light gravity

From: JerryIuliano@aol.com

To: rgrace@rgrace.org

Date: Wed, February 2, 2005 6:34 pm

Sir:

The connection of the Planck mass to the fractal light speed units can be illustrated by a set of double log , quantum gravitational unit , G, identities to the electron energy emev ,( value of electron in million...10^6...electron volts )...beginning with the mass of the electron converted to energy in electron- volts...:

( Me ^ 2 ) * ( c ^ 4 ) * ( 10 ^ - 12 ) * ( ev ^ -2 ) = .261119963mev = emev ^ 2

Me = mass of electron = 9.10938254 * ( 10 ^ -31 )kg

c = speed of light = 299792458m/s

ev = electron volt = 1.60217653 * ( 10 ^ - 19 )C

emev = electron energy = .510998986million electron volts

....the first parameter is warp 4.1 through the quantum unit, h, and the permittivity of space: E : the Planck mass, Mp, is hidden in this equation

log(( log c^4.1 ) + ( log .2 ) + ( log h ) + ( log E ) + 12 ) = .261119963mev

h = Planck's constant = 6.626069287 * ( 10 ^ -34 )J

E = permittivity of space = 8.854187818 * ( 10 ^ - 12 ) F/m

....the second parameter is a shift in light speed downward ( a quantum transmission of exactly one unit c ) to warp 3.1 through the fine-structure constant ...aem:

log(( log c^3.1 ) + ( log ev^2 ) - ( log aem ) + 11 ) = .261119963mev

aem = fine-structure constant = 1/137.03599911..dimensionless

....the third parameter is through the most primitive structure of the unit circle, Pi with light speed shifted downward to warp 2.1, exactly one unit c:

log(( log c^2.1 ) - ( log 2 ) + ( log h ) - ( log Pi )+18 ) = .261119963mev

...the fourth parameter is the square of the Planck mass itself as it becomes gravitational:

( c ^ 1.1 ) / ( 10 ^ 6 ) = Mp ^ 2

Mp = Planck mass = 2.176449594 * ( 10 ^ -8 )kg...factoring out one unit of c:

log(( log c^1.1 ) - ( log 2 ) + ( log h ) - ( log Pi ) + ( log c ) + 18 ) = .261119963mev

....Planck mass appears in the gravity formula with normal light speed ...c^1...

log(( log c^1 ) - ( log 2 ) + ( log h ) - ( log Pi ) - ( log Mp^2 ) + 12 ) = .261119963mev

...the gravitational constant G substitutes here as an electronic expression in volts:

log( logG +12 ) = .26111963mev

...comparing all four parameters:

log(( log c^4.1 ) + ( log .2 ) + ( log h ) + ( log E ) + 12 )

log(( log c^3.1 ) + ( log ev^2 ) - ( log aem ) + 11 )

log(( log c^2.1 ) - ( log 2 ) + ( log h ) - ( log Pi ) + 18 )

log(( log c^1 ) - ( log 2 ) + ( log h ) - ( log Pi ) - ( log Mp^2 ) +12 )

...note how the Planck quantum, h, remains constant in all formulas:

J.Iuliano

log((logc^4.1)+(log.2)+(logh).....+(logE)..............................................+12)

log((logc^3.1).......................................+(logev^2)+(logaem)..............+11)

log((logc^2.1)

-(log2)+(logh)-(logPi).....................................................+18)

log((logc^1.0)

-(log2)+(logh)-(logPi)................................-(logMp^2) +12)

log((logG..................................................................................................+12) ((Me/ev)^2)*(c^4)/(10^12)

...the equivalence in a triple log system as it relates to the electron mass as an acceleration equation. The dual, twelve scalars are interesting:

log(logG+12)*(10^12) = ((Me/ev)^2)*(c^4)

log(log(logG+12)+12) = log((((Me/ev)^2)*(c^4)/(10^12)) +12) =

log((emev^2)+12)

(**Note**: I like the orderly step-down ( log c^4.1 ), ( log c^3.1 ), ( log c^2.1 ), ( log c^1.1 ). Does this represent a separation of dimension by the power of c? MP).

**99.89.17 Can Gravitational "energy" Be Independent? (RGrace)**

Subject: A New Science Paper

From: Terry Wilcock terrypp@aemail4u.com

To: SSmith6565@aol.com, rgrace@rgrace.org

Date: Sat, Feb. 04, 2005

Steve,

Dewey Larson, a highly intelligent researcher, notes below, that gravity's **independent** nature exists. What do you say about this? Do you still believe two gravitic "energy" fields cannot be independent?

" The behavior of gravitation is exactly opposite (of EM behavior). The gravitational effect remains constant at any specific location but varies if the mass moves from one location to another, unless the movement is along an equipotential line. If the gravitational energy at point A is x at t1, it remains x indefinitely (providing that no changes take place in the masses responsible for the gravitational effect). If the mass is allowed to fall to point B it arrives there with a gravitational energy z, which is determined solely by the conditions existing at point B and is completelyindependentof the magnitude of the original gravitational energy x and also independent of the nature of the events that have taken place along the route. " Reciprocal Systems by Dewey Larson.

Robert

terrypp@aemail4u.com

rgrace@rgrace.org

SSmith: In summation:

SSmith: You have stated your position concerning gravity in a concise manner for all to see. You believe it to be right. I believe it to be without scientific or engineering merit.

SSmith: While I have enjoyed this exchange of viewpoints immensely, any further response would be a waste of my time. Therefore this debate is over... If you wish to continue, it will have to be as a monologue.

SSmith: End of summation.

**Steve repeated his Summation and refused to deal with any more pointed questions about independent gravity fields, laws of squares or contradictory theory to his......a typical scientific response. Evidently his quoted invitation, "comments, questions,
or critique is welcome", doesn't really mean what it implies. MP**

© Copyright. Robert Grace. 2004